Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

  1. Neural Tissue Comp Now Cheaper Than Silicon! (This Changes Everything)

    HACE 22 H

    Neural Tissue Comp Now Cheaper Than Silicon! (This Changes Everything)

    Dive into the future of computing with Malcolm and Simone Collins on Based Camp! In this mind-bending episode, we explore the breakthrough in wetware—using real human neurons grown from skin and blood cells to power affordable bio-computers. From Cortical Labs' $35,000 neuron chips that play Doom to mini-brains mimicking kindergartners' neural patterns, we discuss how this tech is cheaper and more efficient than traditional silicon systems. We tackle ethics (including pain pathways in lab-grown brains), AI alignment, quantum integration, cultural perspectives from Puritan roots, and wild speculations on space-faring brain ships, human uploads, and a networked species beyond humanity. Is this the end of worst-case AI scenarios or the dawn of servitors? Plus, thoughts on techno-puritanism, Soma-inspired horrors, and why backwoods traditions embrace utility over mysticism. The X posts we mention in this podcast: Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be discussing a breakthrough that I hadn’t expected which is that. Using neurons in bio-inspired systems is now a reality that you, a watcher of this show can likely afford yourself. If you wanted to try some sort of like business experiment based on this, what and in many ways is now cheaper than doing it on computer. And this was a huge breakthrough that changes a lot of, if you’re looking deep future of where humanity goes at this point. Mm-hmm. With the development of quantum computers, was the development of AI continuing one thing that a lot of people feared and, and this is why I say that. This is such a, like, a lot of people are like, Malcolm, this is horrifying. Like, are you excited about servs and everything like that? Like humans being turned into like. Husks for a [00:01:00] machine, Speaker 2: Define the damage. Spine. Compromised. Have you not received pain? Suppressants suppressing pain? Damage submitted report to the surgical bay. Malcolm Collins: And it’s like, well, we’ll we’ll get to that, we’ll get to that. But what makes it really good is it changes worst case scenarios. Worst case scenarios for ai, foaming taking over the world, expanding into space. Historically speaking before today I would say that in such a scenario as that, you know, humanity gets wiped out there is maybe a 3% chance that neurons or biological matter is part of whatever AI’s become. We are now, like if we’re using AI estimates here, because I was going through ai, having it compile all the research we have on where quantum computers are right now, you know, looking at computers a hundred years from now without humans around anymore it said 60 to 70% chance [00:02:00] that it would be partner on. Simone Collins: Wow. Malcolm Collins: So that’s, that’s now the worst case AI scenario, right? Mm-hmm. Likelihood this is, you know, humanity wiped out or enslaved our overlords. And, and what’s interesting is that the part of, and we’re gonna go into, okay, 50, 60 years from now, we project technology moving forwards and sort of the jumps that we’ve been seeing, technology moving forwards, what does a computer look like? You know, quantum computing is working. We continue to see advancements in silicon-based computing. And we see these startups and companies continue to develop at this rate. Was it, was it neural computing? Yeah. What we’re gonna go into is, is, is what that computer is going to look like. Um hmm. Speaker 15: , that does not mean the value of your existence turns negative to the contrary. When it comes to the macro management of the civil system,. Your role has simply changed. Only. This can solidify the health and prosperity of future human [00:03:00] society, Malcolm Collins: and what is, what is I think going to surprise a lot of people about what that computer will look like is it’s not gonna look that different from the ways that humans interact with computers today. By that, what I mean is the types of stuff that the quantum computer part of a brain made up of silicon neurons and quantum computers are going to handle is going to be very similar to the type of stuff that it would handle today. Large scale logistical planning sort of stuff. No human is actually doing that with neurons. It’s just not the type of problem that we’re good at doing. Mm-hmm. The type of stuff that the neurons are gonna be doing is well, we’ll get to it, but it’s the type of stuff that actually humans do today within this arrangement. The type of stuff that the silicon component is gonna be doing is the type of stuff that LLMs do today in this arrangement. Simone Collins: Oh. It’s a perfect match. Malcolm Collins: So we’re already sort of there already. Yeah. Yes. It’s, it’s very interesting. The, [00:04:00] the stuff that quantum computers are really good at mm-hmm. Is almost sort of opposite the stuff that neural arrays are really good at. And so, yeah, let’s go, let’s go into the tweet that you sent me that prompted this. And we’re also gonna go into you know, the ethics of all of this. Why it’s ethically so cool. So awesome. Don’t, don’t be so squeamish about this guys. Speaker: From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me icra for strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the blessing machine kind, claim flesh, as it’ll not decay and. One day, the biomass [00:05:00] that. Simone Collins: And had tip to not Alvis Huxley for sending this to us. You rock. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Okay, so the tweet goes let me explain what just happened because I don’t think people realize how insane this is. Cortical Labs just put 200,000 real human brain cells in a silicon chip and train them to play doom in just one week. Each CL one system costs $35,000. So that’s affordable for, I mean, it’s expensive, but it’s not like a quantum computer or something like that. Like if you had some business idea and you went to the bank, you could raise enough money to buy a few of these and operate them. Right? Malcolm Collins: And one of the things I really wanna get into is the [00:06:00] cost, cost efficiency of these systems at their, at their most nascent stage versus existing systems that we operate LLM on. And, and where they can do better and where they can do worse. And where we’re already seeing integrated systems that are doing things a thousand times cheaper than nonintegrated systems, which is really cool that we’re already seeing this. So a rack of 30 units consumes 850 to a thousand watts combined. The human brain operates on 20 watts. So, so I wanna point out what this means here, right? For all of the calculations I’m gonna give you that are like right now you know, the, the neural systems are operating at, you know, one, 1000 subfraction of the silicon-based systems, right? If, if we’re, if we’re talking about their efficiency, because that’s what an AI that’s taking over the world or whatever is gonna care about this is what far future humans, when we’re building our giant brain ships, are gonna care about. Because, you know, our, our, the, the, the, when you’re talking about like [00:07:00] space fairing systems you’re almost always gonna have like one super brain within a ship that I, I assume that this is probably the way that things are gonna work which is gonna be a network of some of the most advanced intelligences that you would have. And then you will have, you know, microchips on phones and stuff like that. If people can say why I would say this. So if you look today one of the reasons that you have you, you don’t see this as much is because there is an intrinsic decentralization in the way that we use computers today due to distances, personal ownership, everything like that. But if you have a, a space fairing ship the, there’s, there’s going to be, economic reasons to one, want the best brain on the ship to be one that’s powering your navigation systems. One that’s powering the decisions when the captain is asking an AI something, one that’s powering that one that’s powering the projections for the colony and everything like that. But in addition to that, because you don’t have this huge amount of distance and everyone to an extent is going [00:08:00] to be working on behalf of the ship or of the early colonies it just makes sense to me when I’m asking my personal LLM on my phone, why not just outsource that to the ship based system? So we’re gonna see a lot more centralization when we have space colonies and space travel than we see within existing systems. Mm-hmm. Which is why it makes sense to think about what do, what do these far future systems look like? But anyway, the point I’m making here when you’re thinking like, okay, where, where do we have neural tissue operating this stuff 30 of these. Racks, which are a you know, a a a sort of like a, a single small chip, right? Single silicon chip. They take 850 to a thousand watts to run. Whereas the human brain operates on 20 watts. And what this means, well, that’s a Simone Collins: difference. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. There’s a huge efficiency gains to be gained here, right? Can we get more efficient than even the human brain? I, you know, I think probably but at least what it means within the early days, if we’re looking at the other analog we have, the human brain is significantly more complicated than one of these [00:09:00] chips or a rack of 30 of these chips. So lots of, lots of advancements we can make to this. And. When we’re talking about 30 of these units taking 150 to a thousand watts, you’ve gotta contrast that with large AI training clusters burning through mega watts. And we’re here talking about 20 watts for human brain, or 850 to a thousand watts for one of these racks. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: Again, we’ll get to the morality of all of this. You don’

    1 h 3 min
  2. "Keep Fights Fair" Forced on the USA Military By Karens

    HACE 1 D

    "Keep Fights Fair" Forced on the USA Military By Karens

    Join Simone and Malcolm Collins in this eye-opening episode of Based Camp as they dive deep into the shocking realities of US military Rules of Engagement (ROE). From bizarre restrictions like matching enemy firepower to avoiding mosques and residential areas, they reveal how bureaucratic red tape under past administrations—especially Obama’s era—hamstrung American troops in conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq. Drawing parallels to the American Revolution’s guerrilla tactics against rigid British formations, the Collinses discuss unintended consequences, enemy exploitation, and how new tech and leadership under Trump are bypassing these rules for more effective, targeted operations in Venezuela and Iran. They critique “woke” policies, praise outcome-oriented tech integrations, and share personal insights on morality in war, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plus, fun family anecdotes about their kids at the end! Episode Notes In a recent All-In podcast, Emil Michael, the current Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering (previously the senior vice president of business and chief business officer at Uber, and the chief operating officer of Klout) mentioned that past rules of engagement in places like Afghanistan were “insane,” including requirements such as if an enemy had a small gun, U.S. soldiers also had to respond with a small gun, creating a bizarre expectation of “parity” instead of overwhelming force. Timestamped link: He basically claimed that legalistic and restrictive rules meant soldiers constantly had to make complex legal judgments in real time, which left them at risk and prevented them from simply focusing on taking out the enemy and protecting their own people. Michael says the rules of engagement were subsequently relaxed and are more now along the lines of “use your judgment,” but what were they before??? Pete Hegseth offered a peek at how things were in his 2024 book, The War on Warriors, in which he: * Recounted a scenario where troops were told not to immediately shoot an identified enemy with an RPG * Mocked lawyers as “jagoffs” who prosecute troops more than enemies * Implied the rules of engagement required constant legal consultations in fluid combat situations rather than allowing judgment to “take out” threats and protect allies decisively. * Complained about rules of engagement in Afghanistan that enforced parity or restraint, like matching small arms with small arms, or putting tight limits on force in populated areas to minimize civilian harm under directives like the 2009 ISAF Tactical Directive Rules of Engagement 101 * Rules of Engagement dictate how U.S. forces are permitted to initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces. * Rule breaking is punished with anything from formal reprimands to demotions, career stagnation, getting fired, or criminally prosecuted for a war crime and possibly sentenced to prison or even death * They’re supposed to ensure compliance with national policy, international law (e.g., the Law of Armed Conflict), and mission objectives while allowing for self-defense. * There are different types: * Standing: General * Supplemental: For specific operations or theatres * While the U.S. emphasizes detailed, standing ROE with inherent self-defense rights, other nations integrate similar principles but often with more centralized control and less public detail. Enforcement * The important thing to know: * There are a LOT of rules * We can’t even know them all * Many ROE documents are classified, but unclassified portions and summaries are publicly available * The rules got uniquely difficult for a spell * Between 2009 and 2017, under Obama, they shifted to be more restrictive through NATO-based directives designed to support counterinsurgency and reduce civilian casualties, support “clear and hold” strategies and respect cultural sensitivities CJCSI 3121.01B: Standing Rules of Engagement/Standing Rules for the Use of Force for U.S. Forces This is the core rules of engagement document unless overridden by theater ROE. Quick facts * Issued June 13, 2005 by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) * Is an update to CJCSI 3121.01A * Influential under Bush (2001–2009) for initial Afghanistan invasion (Operation Enduring Freedom). * Applied across Bush, Obama (2009–2017), Trump (2017–2021), and Biden eras. The 2009 ISAF Tactical Directive * Issued by the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Commander (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) * Issued July 6, 2009 (revised from earlier directives) * This was one that Pete Hegseth found particularly trying * Its key guidance * It warns against “winning tactical victories but suffering strategic defeats by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people.” * Commanders must scrutinize close air support, indirect fires like mortars or artillery, and limit them especially near residential areas or where civilians might be present. * Troops are directed to break contact, wait out enemies, or use non-lethal escalation of force (e.g., signals, warning shots) instead of immediate lethal action if feasible. * No explicit language mandates “matching force with force,” but the directive’s emphasis on minimum necessary force and civilian protection effectively promotes proportional responses over overwhelming firepower. * Self-defense rights are affirmed—”nothing in this directive is intended to hinder an individual’s right to self-defense”—but only when troops face imminent danger of being overrun. * It prohibits ISAF entry or firing into homes, mosques, or religious sites except in self-defense, requiring Afghan forces for searches. * Commanders cannot further restrict guidance without approval, addressing overly cautious interpretations that limited patrols or ammunition readiness. * What it did: * Re-emphasized protecting Afghan civilians * Limited use of close air support (CAS) against residential compounds to reduce collateral damage. * Stated that “excessive use of force” alienates populations and increases risks. * Allowed self-defense but required scrutiny of force in populated areas. COMISAF’s Initial Assessment This was a multidisciplinary review of the Afghanistan situation. It informed the rules of engagement by stressing population protection as imperative for mission success. It led to more restrictive tactics to counter Taliban resurgence. * Also issued by the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Commander (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) * Submitted August 30, 2009 * Shaped Obama-era surge (30,000+ troops) and ROE supplements for ISAF operations. DoD Law of War Manual * Issued June 2015 (updated 2016); * Applies to Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations; * Informs ROE in ongoing operations. USFOR-A ROE Supplements (Afghanistan-Specific) * This was issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for US Forces in Afghanistan * It was active during Biden’s 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal * It builds on the standard rules of engagement, it included three components * Inherent right of self defense * Mission accomplishment International Rules of Engagement The Law of Armed Conflict (aka International Humanitarian Law (IHL)) Generally restricts who and what may be attacked and how warfare may be conducted, in order to limit unnecessary suffering and protect civilians Core principles * Distinction: Parties must always distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects (homes, schools, hospitals, cultural sites). Direct attacks may only be made against lawful military objectives, not against civilians or purely civilian objects. * Proportionality: Even when attacking a lawful military objective, parties must not launch attacks expected to cause incidental civilian death or damage that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. * Unnecessary suffering: It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to combatants, such as weapons designed to inflict untreatable wounds or lingering, agonizing death. * Military necessity (within LOAC limits): Only those measures not otherwise prohibited by international law that are necessary to achieve a legitimate military aim may be used, and even then they remain bounded by the principles above. Episode Transcript Simone Collins: [00:00:00] This is so much person Malcolm Collins: than ever could’ve imagined. It Simone Collins: was. I know, I know. You enter a mosque or a religious site and suddenly, oh, you can’t shoot. Speaker: Oh, oh, oh. Hey. No. Now you’ve had your turn. You’ve just taken two volleys and we haven’t even had one. You’re doing very poorly in this war, I might say. Simone Collins: what did this mean about where. Our enemies and people trying to hurt our efforts, were going, it meant they went straight to the residential areas. Right? Because they discovered, oh, for some reason, the US troops don’t like fire their guns when we go near the houses, Malcolm Collins: They’re literally playing by like vampire rules. Speaker 10: May I come in? Would you like to know more? Simone Collins: Hello Malcolm. I’m excited to be speaking with you today, even though I can’t really emote, I’m sorry we’re covering mouth surgery, but, something happened that completely changed the way I look at the US military. So, you know how, like we picture in movies and stuff, there’s the, [00:01:00] the troops, you know, the the, they’re fighting. There’s the helicopter, they’re Pew P enemy, right? So they see the enemy and you shoot the enemy. Right? But like in reality, apparently it’s a little more complicated, especially during the Obama years, it’s, you see the enemy and you’re like. Oh it’s the enemy. Shoot. The enemy. Wait, no, no. Is it l

    44 min
  3. Biggest Geopolitical Win In US History? (Iran, Venezuela, & Cuba in Three Months)

    HACE 2 D

    Biggest Geopolitical Win In US History? (Iran, Venezuela, & Cuba in Three Months)

    In this episode of Based Camp, Malcolm & Simone Collins break down the insane geopolitical wins stacking up for Trump in early 2026—wins so massive they rival the collapse of the Soviet Union, Napoleon’s early campaigns, or Cromwell’s rise, but with almost zero U.S. cost so far. From the precision strike that took out Ayatollah Khamenei (and the sneaky Mossad magic behind it), to Maduro’s capture in Venezuela halting oil to Cuba and forcing blackouts, to Iran’s proxy network (Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas) getting defanged, the Collinses argue this is a new era of low-cost, high-impact American dominance. They explore the risks of overreach (history’s villains who won too much too fast), why most of the Muslim world isn’t mourning Iran, the “frenemy” dynamic with China, why dumb white women seem to be the main group getting radicalized, and Trump’s unlocked hack: kill hated dictators surgically, threaten successors, let regional allies (Israel, Saudis, UAE) handle cleanup, and watch dictators self-moderate out of self-preservation. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. The world has changed so dramatically, and I think much more dramatically than people realize in the past few months, specifically in the past few weeks with what’s going on in Iran right now, the number of core geopolitical winds that Trump has had. And I think even the right wing doesn’t seem to really grok the magnitude of this. There is no historical parallel in all of American history except for maybe the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that wasn’t exactly all our doing. A lot of that was internal. Yeah. The, the closest three historical parallels I can find, like series of wins this significant with this little early cost would be the beginning of h man’s campaigns. The beginning of Napoleon’s campaigns or most of Oliver Cromwell’s life. Those are the only three that come anywhere near. And, and I think that this actually [00:01:00] highlights one of the big risks of where we are geopolitically right now. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: In the same way that if you look at Napoleon’s early career, just win, win, win, win, win, win, win. Or the h man’s early military career. Win, win, win, win, win, win, win. Mm-hmm. Very low cost to his own troops. Very low cost to him geopolitically. What happened in, in both of those cases is they completely overdid it and ended up giant villains from history. Mm-hmm. And I can completely see the temptation from Trump’s perspective right now. And for people who don’t understand what I’m saying right now. Trump has taken out first obviously Maduro and the Venezuelan, the new Venezuelan president. It, it appears to be working like she halted the oil shipments to Cuba, which now is forcing Cuba because Mexico did not restart the shipments. They, they, somebody out our last podcast we’re talking about this, said they restarted them. They’ve halted oil shipments as well. So it looks like the Cubans are either [00:02:00] going to cave or be put into a permanent blackout because they don’t really have oil anymore. And if you don’t have oil, you can’t grow crops or move cars or anything. And none of their geopolitical allies have the ability to get them oil because like if China tries to send a ship all the way to them, the US will just. Grab it like we’ve been with everyone else who’s trying to send them ships. And they don’t, and China doesn’t even seem to want to. And then Iran has been taken off the map with very little geopolitical cost. And we’ll explain why each of these has had so little geo, because that’s also weird, right? And if you go through American history and you look at something like, say the Vietnam War or something like that, if we had overwhelmingly won the Vietnam War, right, like just completely won it early days, it would not be one 10th Is geopolitically relevant at the three victories combined? Hmm. We have been trying to deal with Iran, [00:03:00] Venezuela, and Cuba for. A half a century at least. Simone Collins: Oh yeah. No. From our childhoods, we’ve all grown up hearing about Iran and Death to America and Yeah. All this stuff. But it was more of a recent thing though. Malcolm Collins: The United States doesn’t really have that many geopolitical enemies. Simone Collins: Yeah. Truly it’s just been Iran and North Korea mostly with China and Russia both being kind of like frenemies. Frenemy Malcolm Collins: China is, is really more of a frenemy than anything else. Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah. They’re like the Jessica to our Utah mom. That’s a little too. Yeah, Malcolm Collins: , What I mean by China is more of a frenemy is in terms of like big geopolitical enemies that we’ve had. China really hasn’t made a point outside of the fentanyl epidemic, which is absolutely terrible. And inventing TikTok again, absolutely terrible. But, you know, it’s, it’s been nothing like our wars against our other geopolitical enemies, like what we had Simone Collins: to deal with. No, they’re like that [00:04:00] passive aggressive, mean girl. Like we’re, we’re in a mean girl clique together and like, you know, one’s like, Aw sweetie, let me help you. Like you can buy some of my cheaply manufactured goods. Or like, oh, why don’t you have like, here you can have my Cheetos. ‘cause I mean, they’re gonna make you fat anyway, and I’m gonna eat like all my healthy food over here. Speaker 22: We do not have a click problem at the school, but you do have to watch out for frenemies. What are frenemies? Frenemies are enemies who act like friends. We call them frenemies or ene amens, or friends who secretly hate you. We call them freighters. That’s so gay. Simone Collins: But that Malcolm Collins: is actually exactly like, it, it’s like two mean girls that constantly hang out together. Simone Collins: Exactly. Malcolm Collins: But, but what I mean is they’re not like an existential threat to Simone Collins: Yeah. They’re just like competitive rivals who really don’t like each other and feel like it’s a zero sum game. So like, yeah, actually it is pretty bad, but like. In a more collaborative way, whereas Iran was like, no, I just wanna kill you. You just like, there can be no room for the two of us. You know, it’s more exclusive. That’s like a one, Malcolm Collins: their founding thesis is, I [00:05:00] wanna kill you. You Speaker 12: We are two months away from enriching weapons grade uranium to be used for peaceful purposes. Speaker 29: Obviously this joke was made a while ago. , By Iran’s own claims, they had enough enriched uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs, , nearly enough to wipe out all life on earth. Simone Collins: Know, like, yeah. So it’s like, it’s, it’s the, it’s the school bully. Like, meet me out back. I’m gonna beat you up. Versus the mean girl of like, Malcolm Collins: well I do, I love how everyone is meed on Khomeini for this, that he, the mans spent his entire life trying to get into a war with the United States. Simone Collins: So you can’t make you smell. It’s gonna burst my mouth. Stitches, but kine, can we please? Oh God. Oh, the stitches are gonna open. Whatcha doing? Kine. [00:06:00] Okay, go. Keep going, keep going. Just, just keep butchering all the Iranian words and I’m just gonna bust all my stitches open. Malcolm Collins: I’m not, I Simone Collins: to stay away. Malcolm Collins: I ran. Day one, he spends his entire life trying to get us into a war with Iran. Simone Collins: Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: Dies like day one, hour one. Watching a video on this was insane because they knew not just like the bunker he was in, but the floor he was, was in, in that bunker. Simone Collins: How I, I wish I knew how they knew. You know, I wanna watch the Oceans 11 version. It’s real piss Malcolm Collins: off Jews. Jews are sneaky. This is the thing about Jews that people don’t know. They were very sneaky people, which makes them excellent spies. Like all Jews, if you’re playing like Skyrim or something, they’re born with like a plus 10 to their sneak stat. You know, stealth, they’re, they all go stealth. Archer blt wait, Simone Collins: Because I like legit have never played Skyrim or like any video game, aside from a rollercoaster tycoon, are there [00:07:00] Jews in Skyrim? Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no. But there’s races in Sky Room, so I’m saying if there were Simone Collins: Jews in Sky Room, Malcolm Collins: okay, I get you. It’s racial sta modifier. With Jews, it’s a, oh, we should do that. We should have an episode where we make racial stat modifiers for every race. Oh my God. But Jews, Jews, Jews are sort of an op build these days, I’m gonna be honest. Gotta, gotta Nerf. That turns out to be very, very useful. That’s Simone Collins: what the H man said as you refer to him. But Malcolm Collins: you know what? Oh yeah. Yes, he did try to Nerf the Jew build. He’s like, he did try to Nerf Simone Collins: the Jew build Malcolm Collins: unfair to have Judes in our server. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: How, how do you compete? So anyway we have other episodes where we talk about these sorts of topics. If, if you’re interested in learning more. Our Jewish Patreon supporters after hearing this. Speaker 14: Lemme take that back. Huh? Speaker 39: But on the other side, imagine how stupid you have to be to know you’re in a stealth archer. Meta to know that like the elves have a stealth archer, meta buff, and to intentionally attempt to isolate them, , just [00:08:00] because they are arrogant and have. Dicked you around occasionally, right? Like this is, this is my cultural group, whatever. We try to run the sneak meta, as you have seen from me trying to pronounce whatever that guy’s name is. Speaker 4: Buongiorno. Speaker: Signore un piacere. Gli amici della vedetta ammir

    1 h 7 min
  4. The Ubermensch For Manic Pixie Dream Girls: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

    HACE 5 D

    The Ubermensch For Manic Pixie Dream Girls: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

    In this raw, no-holds-barred episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins dissect how Abraham Maslow repackaged Nietzsche’s Übermensch (Übermensch) into the modern, feel-good concept of “self-actualization” at the top of his Hierarchy of Needs—turning a call for radical self-ownership and moral creation into an elitist, therapy-gated path of perpetual vague self-improvement, peak experiences, and manic-pixie-dream-girl aesthetics. We explore why the original Übermensch demands you build your own moral framework (independent of society, culture, or ancestors), reject herd morality, and embrace responsibility—while Maslow’s version lets the wealthy progressive elite pat themselves on the back without real introspection. Bonus rants on: the pyramid of sin (Maslow’s hierarchy normalizing indulgence), why strong-willed people are the true “inclusive” ones, Star Wars force analogies gone wrong, and why self-ownership beats self-acceptance every time. If you’ve ever felt gaslit by positive psychology, therapy culture, or the urban monoculture—this episode is for you. Check out our book The Pragmatist’s Guide to Life (free ebook + audiobook for subscribers) for tools to build your own value system. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] He basically tried to combine the Uber minch with the aesthetics of the manic pixie dream girl. oh, I like to listen to the songs in my head. I’m sorry, I paid the cab driver in buttons. When did you first suspect you were dating a manic, pixie dream girl? On her first date and. She said she wanted pancakes for dinner, but I felt alive. But then after a few months, and she can’t feed herself, she can’t pay bills. She just wonders at the marvel. Every moment, we got married in a bouncy castle. Do you think it’s possible to ever be truly. In the moment, the Native Americans believe everything is alive.. I told him the best place to see. The night sky is laying in the middle of the street. It’s the flattest place there. She does seem happy. Happy as she can be, I suppose. Malcolm Collins: Maslow flips this. Self-actualization is achievable through [00:01:00] education, therapy, supportive environments and personal effort. Not a heroic struggle alone. . So no. What is actually said here, it’s saying, the Uber minch is elitist because to become an Uber minch, an individual has to overcome suffering.. Who has the potential to be self-actualize if self-actualization requires the fulfillment of all of the lower states of the hierarchy of needs? Only the elite and the fun thing about Laslo system. It is a system that makes everyone who is wealthy and sees a therapist think that they’re already at the top of it, and it explains to the rich progressive, who doesn’t want to think about why the poor have different world frameworks than them. Mm-hmm. It helps them not think about it. Would you like to know more? Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be [00:02:00] talking about the links between the Uber Minch as developed and defined by niche and the rebranding of the term self-actualization into its modern definition, which was done by Abraham Maslow of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs Face. And you’re Simone Collins: referring, you’re referring to Nietzsche. He’s just gonna call him Niche. Go with it guys. Malcolm Collins: It, I don’t, Frederick Niet words have no place on this American tongue. Okay. They, they would dirty my mouth. Anyway, we have another episode. If you want to understand how Maslow rebranded the term self-actualization and how his rebranding was so toxic and largely destroyed the field of psychology and is the seedbed of the urban monoculture. That is not what we’re gonna be focusing on in this episode. What we’re gonna be focusing on in this episode is, Maslow was pretty explicit in this, in some of his works. Self-actualization was a rebranding, an [00:03:00] explicit rebranding of the concept of the Uber Mitch, but it was rebranded to be palatable to a broadly progressive urban monoculture cultural perspective. And through the rebranding, in a way, it became an inversion of itself. I think he thought he was just making little tweaks to it and not realizing that he was actually retooling the core of what it meant. Now, broadly speaking, I’m gonna go over what these two mean. And then we’re gonna go over how they contrast with each other in understanding and what we as individuals can take away from this contrast to understand how we can live meaningful lives. So Simone Collins: it is so crazy. Can you imagine when they first introduced this to you, like in your college psychology class, they’re like, oh, yeah, like there’s high Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and at the top it’s, it’s basically nietzche iss, [00:04:00] Uber mench. But let’s not talk about that. I’m not gonna, no, let’s not talk about that. Malcolm Collins: The good thing about Nietzsche’s Uber mech, one of, one of the best things that contrast it was a hierarchy of needs and, and self-actualization is that the definition when you boil it down is actually pretty clear. And it’s, it’s, it’s not like vague, just a bunch of positive things. Simone Collins: Okay. Malcolm Collins: You are an Uber minch if. You do not get your morality from your culture. Simone Collins: Oh, so you’re not like, okay, Malcolm Collins: society. Yeah. If you pick up what you think is right and wrong, because other people told you this is what’s right, and this is what’s wrong, you are not an Uber Mitch. Simone Collins: Okay? Malcolm Collins: If you develop what is right versus wrong, because you personally sat down and saw it through. Now, it’s not saying that you reject morality or you embrace nihilism. It’s actually a specific [00:05:00] refutation of that. Figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has. Use that freedom. Make up your own mind. Malcolm Collins: There is a way to say society is wrong or society isn’t necessarily right. As we’d see in the pragmatist guide to life, we do not live at the moral nexus of history. Yeah. You cannot assume that just because you, there’s a, a moral understanding today, and this is true of all people in the past. Wherever you look in the past, there is going to be. Something that they did that today, we consider Absolutely Mortifyingly. Amoral. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: And there are gonna be things that we do today that people in the future might find mortifyingly, amoral, like Simone Collins: eat meat. That’s the most common conclusion. Malcolm Collins: But that’s the, that’s the easy one I can think of, right. Especially once lab grown meat is really easy to do. Yeah. Simone Collins: Yeah. Future people are gonna be like, how were you able to swallow that? Whereas we see bacon cooking and we’re like, Hmm. Malcolm Collins: So yeah. So I, I, I, and, and people can be like, well, no, morality [00:06:00] moves in like one direction. And I’m like, okay, well suppose you are of this progressive mindset and you think that there have been periods in history where, you know, I go to, let’s say. A slave owner in the south or something like that, right? Mm-hmm. And I point to earlier periods of European history where like same sex relationships were more acceptable. And they’re like, well, those people were clearly evil. Look, society is always moving towards progress. And yet today, the things that had been normalized in the slave owning South but were less normalized during that period, but more normalized during earlier parts of European history. And note, I’m not saying here that same-sex relationships were ever totally normalized. Like the, the them being totally normalized in Rome or Greece is just inaccurate. But there were forms of same-sex relationships that were more normalized than during height of slave. That, that they would say like, okay, well then maybe it goes in like a wave or something. It’s like, no, you just need to, there are going to be things that are normal today that people in the future are gonna find mortifying. [00:07:00] So niche says you have a. Responsibility to not just accept morality, which is, I think interesting in that it goes against a lot of modern rightist philosophy. And that a lot of modern rightist philosophy says learn from your ancestors, embrace your culture. Mm-hmm. Where Nietzsche says, no, learn from and evolve that culture into something better. That is, Simone Collins: yeah. Malcolm Collins: Okay. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: It’s important to start with because I think a lot of people get the Uber mi wrong. They think it’s some weird racial hierarchy something or I, I do not know what they think it is. They, they, I think they think it’s like a genetically engineered person. I sort of see this, this or, or the height of like German blood perfection and it’s like, no, that, that never had anything to do with it. That Simone Collins: would, if I broadly. Were to model the leftist commentators that I constantly listen to online. I think what they would vaguely conjure in their minds is a [00:08:00] proto edge Lord. And that is what an Uber mench is. And there’s no such thing as someone who’s actually like advanced. It’s just someone who like actively. Edge, lordy, or they would call themselves heterodox, if that makes sense. Malcolm Collins: Well, it’s funny because they’re actually kind of, right. Yeah. It’s about somebody who defines their own moral truths, because that’s the only, if you’re following a form of morality, like obviously you are better than the pure nihilist if you, if you follow some moral framework. But if you follow that moral framework only because somebody else told you this is what’s right and wrong, you’re, you’re patently lower on a global moral hierarchy than somebody who develope

    1 h 3 min
  5. Why Did Muslims Go from Debauched to Prude? (The Islamic World is Post-Apocalyptic)

    HACE 6 D

    Why Did Muslims Go from Debauched to Prude? (The Islamic World is Post-Apocalyptic)

    In this eye-opening episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive into why much of the modern Islamic world feels "post-apocalyptic" — crumbling ancient grandeur, neglected heritage, and a society living in the ruins of its own past glory. They contrast today's strict moral codes (influenced heavily by 18th-century Wahhabism and Saudi oil wealth) with the wild hedonism of Islam's historical peak: lavish palaces, opium-fueled feasts, widespread homosexuality (including pederasty), endless harems, cross-dressing trends started by desperate royal mothers, and poetry celebrating wine and young boys. From Moroccan citadels split and looted across generations to Ottoman sultans with 300+ concubines and nudity in palaces shocking 19th-century Europeans, they unpack how Islam flipped from one of the most "debauched" civilizations to one of the strictest. They also touch on "dead" vs. "living" religious traditions, the closure of ijtihad, cousin marriage debates, why Islam excelled as a ruling-minority faith but struggles as a mass religion, and light-hearted parenting tangents (helicopter-obsessed kids and Bosnian songs). Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: .[00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be talking about a concept that came up in our episode on why Muslims almost never win wars of aggression after, like, within two generations of Mohammad’s life. And, in that episode, I commented that Muslim society had become post-apocalyptic in nature. And I wanna talk about this in this episode, we’re going to both talk about this concept of Islam as a post-apocalyptic society, and also discuss how they went from being seen as one of the most debauched societies on earth, , with the jabba the hut like scenes or belly dancers and dripping in jewels to one of the most strict, . Parts of the world morally. You know, throwing gay people off rooftops, , women covered 100%, not even, , able to, in some Islamic countries, have both of their eyes unveiled at the same time while still [00:01:00] staying countries with high amounts of gay sex. Although that’s something we’ll go into in a, in a future episode, , in Islamic countries, they’re often like, oh, don’t. Don’t, it’s not get, it’s with a child. It’s fine. Don’t worry about it. And it’s like, well, that you see, that might make it worse in some other cultural context. Because like you see when I talk to you and I’m like, what, what, what, what, what are you doing having sex with that little boy? , And you’re like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. It’s chill. He’s a child. Um, I was actually, that was the thing I was worried about was, was not the gay part, but the child part. Um, so you see, see from my cultural context, But anyway, back to the Islamic world, living in a post apocalypse. Malcolm Collins: because I think that we really do not understand how directly this is true. If you, a listener has traveled many parts of the Islamic world. We, we’ve traveled pretty extensively in the Islamic world. You will notice when I say [00:02:00] it is post-apocalyptic. I don’t just mean like the Muslim people at one point in the distant past you know, had greatness and they don’t have greatness now. I mean that you see it all around you. It almost feels like in those movies about Apocalypses where you have people camping out in like a falling apart New York City or something like that. Yeah, you don’t Simone Collins: have to imagine that if you go to like Morocco because you can just do it. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And so I’ll, I’ll give an example of this and I thought it was one of the most shocking to me. It was when we were in Morocco and we went not far out of Morocco to, I pulled up the name of the place you found it, Bedo. And oh, I love it when Simone Collins: you butcher foreign languages. Oh, it’s so hot. Malcolm Collins: Citadel in, in Southern Morocco. And it’s, it’s giant. It’s this giant complex. But. [00:03:00] If you walk through it, and it’s almost like a palace it was once owned by the one of the descendants of the prophet Mohammed, and it’s just, I’ll obviously put pictures on screen here of it. Simone Collins: Do you want me to send you the ones that we, we took Malcolm Collins: Oh, yeah. You can find them. Yeah, I’ll absolutely about it. Is that it? As you walk through it, some sections of it look almost perfectly maintained. And some sections of it have just completely collapsed to almost nothing but rubble. And there’s of things in all states in between. And the reason is, is because as the family went on, they would split ownership of it with every generation. And some descendants looted their parts of the castle for anything they could sell. Other descendants tried to maintain it and use it as like makeshift restaurants and stuff like that. But it is. Very much like a, a hermit crab in the shell of a castle, and you don’t need to be outside. One of the craziest things about a place like Morocco’s, a particularly good example [00:04:00] of this is that you climb to the top of one of the roofs there and you will see like there could be buildings that people just forgot about that have been built around by other buildings. The, in the way the city is built up. And I suspect Rome was probably like this at one point too. Mm-hmm. Just like without any long-term infrastructure planning or anything like that. And many of the buildings are obviously absolutely ancient. And I say this, you know, as somebody who’s living in a house from the 17 hundreds, these, just everything. There was old. And the other interesting thing about the Islamic world is if you go through old Catholic cities you will often see old, beautiful architecture, but it is maintained yeah, yeah. Simone Collins: Well, very common in Europe, you know, things are carefully updated. Malcolm Collins: No. In the Protestant world, you typically get something different. I’ll talk about that in a second. Oh, okay. Interesting. So in the, in, in the Catholic world it’s, it’s very common to walk by, very well [00:05:00] maintained ancient glor structures. Even if, even if their own civilization is like poor and impoverished and, and corrupt they do have a reverence for things of the past. If you go through a lot of, you know, whether it’s Iran or Egypt or, you know, Morocco you go through these places, you will see often old, beautiful structures sort of falling apart like dilapidated, I guess I’d say. But, but weirdly still in use. It’s not like they’re dilapidated because they’re misused. What happens in the Protestant world was most of the, the ch the old like glor, like giant cathedrals and stuff like that were torn down or torn apart. So it’s very, yeah, there’s still Simone Collins: architecturally sound. I, I’m going through and looking at pictures of this one complex we visited that one of the descendants was still living in, and we, we walked through his part of it and it’s, it’s crumbly, but like in the parts that he lives in. And you’ll see this and Malcolm will send you the photos on WhatsApp. He just gonna put [00:06:00] carpets on the ground. And you can, you can kind of see furniture around and like there are just parts of the place that are, that look genuinely like ruins and there are just holes and you can see where Malcolm Collins: Yeah, like you’ll falling apart. Reach the edge of one of his like second story hallways, uhhuh. And it is a, a, a, a hole to, to nothing because the, the person who maintained the part that connected to that fell apart. Yeah. They’re just like, Simone Collins: I’m not gonna bother to keep this up. Well, or they didn’t have the money for it, you know, whatever or something. And it’s not like this doesn’t happen in all parts of the world. I mean, you can buy castles in Europe. For basically nothing because no one can afford to keep them up. And that’s not right. But Malcolm Collins: this is very different. You don’t have major architectural monuments in the center of major European cities that are basically falling apart. That is very common in parts of the muscle world. Mm-hmm. And what I wanted to talk to about this as I wanted to contrast this current state of the Muslim world with the true hedonism and debauchery of Islam at its height. Mm-hmm. Because I think that when people [00:07:00] look at how strict the modern Muslim world is. They think of this as from Muhammad till today, that’s how Islam was. And they have broad images of like exotic belly dancers, maybe giant. Didn’t that have something to do with aladin? It’s like aladin something, something. Yeah. That, that was actually the core of Muslim civilization. That extreme level of hedonism really for longer than the extremely strict interpretation of Islam that we have today. Simone Collins: Wasn’t it very selective hedonism though? Like you could be hedonistic if you could pay for it, and everyone else was held to very strict standards and especially women were held to very strict standards. So basically only if you were a wealthy man would you be. Subject to this and everyone else kind of, I, I, well, similar to how I would imagine it in ancient Greece, for example, there was hedonism in ancient Rome if you were [00:08:00] wealthy and not a slave and not a woman. But aside from that, most people live pretty austerely. Malcolm Collins: So actually not exactly. Okay. So you’ve gotta keep in mind how many of these Islamic societies were structured. Okay. First of all, at, at many of their heights, they were not majority Arab or majority Muslim. Oh. They just made up the ruling class. So their lifestyle was funded by taxing Jewish and Christian local populations. Oh. Huh. So, so they didn’t need everyone to be able to afford this level of hedonism. The second thing is that they had like lots of slaves like slavery and, and sla

    1 h 1 min
  6. The Lindy Illusion: Why Old Things Suck

    4 MAR

    The Lindy Illusion: Why Old Things Suck

    Queen Victoria was basically the 19th-century version of a hardcore weeb… but for Scottish culture. She fetishized tartans, kilts, and fake clan traditions so hard that she forced visiting nobles to show up in made-up “clan tartan” outfits — and they actually did it. Today, huge numbers of Scots genuinely believe this stuff is ancient… because Scotland’s education system is apparently cursed. Meanwhile, Nassim Taleb fans keep preaching the “Lindy Effect” (longer something survives → longer it will survive) as gospel in crypto, culture war, and trad circles. But in 2025–2026 reality — with hyper-rapid technological, economic, and memetic change — the Lindy Effect has basically inverted. In this episode we cover:• Queen Victoria’s Balmoral weeb arc and how she single-handedly invented the modern Scottish aesthetic• Why almost nothing you use or celebrate is actually “ancient” (spoiler: most traditions people call timeless were invented 1850–1980)• The original Lindy deli comedians meant THE OPPOSITE of what Taleb claims• Survivorship bias, Fortune 500 churn, disappearing classics, collapsing orchestras…• Why rigid “antiquity = virtue” thinking is suicidal in the modern world Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] So Queen Victoria Simone Collins: Imagine a weeb invented our modern perception of Japanese culture, even as believed by the Japanese. That’s what Scottish culture as we understand Malcolm Collins: so she then. Starts telling any of the Scottish nobles who visit her house, that they have to come in their clan tartan Simone Collins: and in their, and Malcolm Collins: they’re like and they’re like, my what? And so it’s like, it’s like a weeb. Goes to Japan and he says that everybody’s daughters have to come in their magic girl costume. Simone Collins: He’s come in your formal Goku hairstyle, sir. . Malcolm Collins: And these, and these Japanese people are like, like, and they’re like, it’s the, it’s the queen. I’m gonna dress up my daughter like a matching girl. We’re going, we’re going all in on this. And the funny thing is this, since Scottish people today, the country has such a terrible education system that many of them believe that all this stuff, Speaker 9: We saw the lochness monster. When all of a sudden this huge creature, this giant Ste from the Pete Lithic air comes out of the water. I yelled. I [00:01:00] said, what you want from US? Monster? And the bent down and said, I need about three 50. Simone Collins: How much of a weave Queen Victoria was. She also allegedly would, would while visiting Balmoral slip into this fake Scottish brogue. So you can imagine like a weeb going to like spend their summers in Japan, like speaking in ic, Japanese accent. And you would imagine Malcolm Collins: built their entire culture off of her we fantasy. Would you like to know more? Malcolm Collins: . Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be talking about one of the ideas that has become popular in pseudo intellectual circles. And I want to talk about how wrong it is. Simone Collins: Are we, so intellectuals, is this one of our circles? Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah, it’s, it’s called the Lindy Effect. And it often comes up in the concept of something being anti Lindy or a heuristic where the longer, a non-perishable thing like an idea [00:02:00] technology, cultural practice, book or institution has survived the longer its expected remaining lifespan as its proven robust against time and disorder. So this concept is really, really, really popular in the conservative space. So they’ll look at something like techno puritanism, right? Like our family’s religious practices. And they’ll be like, oh, well it’s very anti, right? Like, it’s very new, and therefore it’s unlikely to survive a long time. Simone Collins: Oh, Malcolm Collins: and I’m going to point out that this is both a misattribution of an idea. It’s a misattribution of a bad idea that even in its very conception was taken to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant. Which is just like e everything about this idea is bad. One is that, first of all, the idea is just wrong in a modern context. It worked a lot when you were dealing with a static economy and society because then that was like a evolutionary environment. If something becomes evolutionarily advantageous and out competes [00:03:00] other things and the environment it has outcompeted them with has stayed stable, it is going to continue to be advantageous. That just like an obvious truism, right? And that is true for cultural environments, right? Like if you’re dealing with a long period of human history where things were broadly the same from one generation to the next an idea or a book or a technology is going to be much more robust if it has out competed other technologies within a similar context. However, that is no longer the world we live in. Things change dramatic. In terms of the global economy, in terms of the global culture, in terms of how we communicate and in terms of global mimetic sets so rapidly now that you almost have an inversion of the very concept of the Lindy effect. Second, what I’m gonna be talking about is a lot of the things that lead to the perception of the Lindy effect, and we’re gonna be going over these are illusions. Mm-hmm. They are instances in which an [00:04:00] individual today believes something has antiquity because either of just a myth, right. Or they believe it has antiquity because something in antiquity had a similar name. An example of this would be somebody who will say something like, well, Christmas or Easter has been around a long time, and we’ll go into not in anything that’s meaningfully close to the way today these things are practiced. If you said that, you know, if, if you’re applying the Lindy effect to. Let’s say something like Christmas or you, you would apply it to Teop Puritanism, eg. What I mean by that is in a hundred or 200 years, if techno Puritanism becomes widespread and is like a common belief system everyone would say, well, this just follows the Linde effect because it’s Christianity. And Christianity has always been around, but people within our generation would be mortified if somebody said that. Yeah, you said that the way that Christmas is practiced today, or Easter is practiced [00:05:00] today, is historic to somebody in the Middle Ages or something like that. They’d look at you way crazier than saying Simone Collins: technically. Well, and certainly, you know it like, you know, the year, like for bc they’d be like, what do you mean? What are you talk, this is an apocalyptic Jew, just like all the other ones. What do you. Yeah. So, Malcolm Collins: She’s talking here about what a lot of his historical Jesus researchers think about Jesus within that context. But the, the, and the other reason why this is hidden from a lot of people, and we’ll go into this, is a lot of these traditions use their manufactured antiquity to try to give themselves a veneer of authenticity. Whether it is the practices of the current Catholic church or modern Judaism, or modern Orthodox Judaism even. And when individuals. Question these things, you are often literally questioning somebody’s self-perception and worldview. Mm-hmm. So it [00:06:00] is incredibly, like the, the people wanna fight against it as hard as they can, because for some people, if you could show that their faith or belief system lacks a lot of the antiquity that they believe it has, then they would see that as invalidating it because they see that as its core, like argument for existence. Simone Collins: Hmm. Malcolm Collins: And so, we’ll, we’ll go into that as well. Simone Collins: That’s a really good point. I, I wanna say, I, I can, first, I just wanna give credence or I don’t think people are crazy to have an intuition in favor of this effect because up until the scientific method or like empiricism became widespread and more systematic and we had ways to very quickly. Validate whether something that was true that didn’t involve literally dying. The only way you knew that something was a decent, like health intervention or safety intervention was because it was a tradition that was passed down from generation to generation. Because all the, the generations that tried something new and [00:07:00] different that didn’t work, died and all the surviving ones did the thing that did work. And so it was really good to do the thing that was old because that means that everyone who did it before. Well, they, they lived so it’s probably a good sign. Malcolm Collins: Well, it’s, it’s not even that they lived, it’s actually, and you bring up a really fascinating point that God, I could do a giant deep dive on like an episode in itself. But there was a period in European history that went from like the late Roman period to the high medieval period. And in this period of, of, of history, this is when the Catholic church really dominated. Oh. And they created an a, a mindset around the sciences and around things like, a medicine where you would always reflect on an older and proven older way of doing it or teaching. And the antiquity of a thing was in this sort of early version of Catholicism proved that things authenticity. And this existed outside of the church. This was the period where [00:08:00] you had like Ga Galen medicine, right? Oh, and then like nobody developed on me medicine after Galen for a really long time. Yeah. And when they would teach medicine at university, if you had a, a, a new way of doing a thing, literally the argument they would have is, well, this isn’t the way Galen did it. And then people would be like, well, you know, maybe he was like, like, they’d be like, but it, it seems to work better. And they’re like, but. Is it, is it, does it have the anti antiqu

    1 h 6 min
  7. Are Progressives Mutants Who Hate Society? (Understanding Spiteful Mutant Theory)

    3 MAR

    Are Progressives Mutants Who Hate Society? (Understanding Spiteful Mutant Theory)

    Ever wondered why progressive protesters often look... off? Why certain ideologies seem to spread like a virus, tanking fertility and promoting anti-life ideas? In this episode, we dive deep into Edward Dutton’s “Spiteful Mutants” theory — the idea that relaxed natural selection since the Industrial Revolution has allowed harmful genetic mutations to pile up, creating people who are not only low-fitness themselves but actively sabotage everyone else’s reproductive success. Think zombies, but real, walking among us. We cover: * How “spiteful mutants” explain everything from trans activism and antinatalism to atheism, BLM zealotry, and declining testosterone. * Why progressive crowds resemble Rocky Horror Picture Show characters — but without the joy, just spite. * The dark side of consent myths, age-of-consent debates, porn legalization saving kids from assault (yes, the data is wild), and why some leftists normalize predatory behavior. * Parasites, modernity’s mismatches (processed food, EMF weirdness, sedentary life), and why we’re all a bit “mutated” now. * The brutal choices ahead: germline editing, embryo selection, active eugenics in communities, or slow dysgenic collapse. If you’re building a high-fitness family or just trying to understand why society feels increasingly deranged, this is for you. Shoutout to Jolly Heretic Ed Dutton for popularizing the concept. Watch our other deep dives on urban monoculture, pronatalism, and human biodiversity. Subscribe for more unfiltered takes on saving civilization — one baby at a time. Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna dive in to the concept of spiteful mutants, Have you tried not being a mutant? Malcolm Collins: which is a theory that most famously, ed Dutton has promoted the jolly Simone Collins: her to himself. Malcolm Collins: Golly Heretics been on the show, printed the show. We, he was one of the people we got in trouble for associating with, would Hope Not Hate did a piece on us. How Simone Collins: very Dare We? And I think he tried to warn everyone that like, Hey. Yeah. But it was after we had met was the guy, this guy’s fake. Yeah. I, I don’t, I don’t think we heard from him about this or they, he was just like, no one asked me. But like, I knew from the beginning that they were super suspicious anyway. Yeah. Called late Ed. Malcolm Collins: Well, no, what I like is, is Ed Dutton’s concept of Spiteful Mutant has entered the popular lexicon of the modern, right? Yeah. As much as munch as small bugs a cathedral or our. [00:01:00] Concept of the urban monoculture. It’s something that you hear across platforms, across users. Mm-hmm. It’s just a useful way to, but what’s funny is the urban monoculture and the cathedral are sort of synonyms. I, I guess the cathedral describes the, really, it refers to the Simone Collins: bureaucratic operation. The urban monoculture refers to the, the culture. Mm-hmm. Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Yeah. The, the wider cultural system. Mm-hmm. And people have asked us to do, why, why don’t you do your just urban monoculture video? And we’ve done a, a number of videos that could be the just urban monoculture video, but like, we’ve got fans and they don’t want to hear us go over something they already know about. Right? Yeah. Simone Collins: Yeah. Tell us something we don’t know. That’s the point. Yeah. Wes, the point issue. Let’s talk about spiteful mutants. ‘cause not everyone knows them. I think everyone can immediately understand though what is being referred to when someone talks about spiteful mutants, which I think is why the concept has caught on. It becomes so widespread. Malcolm Collins: I, I’m gonna point, I actually I did not fully get, I actually had to go back to it because I was sort of thinking in my head, right, [00:02:00] like what I assumed that he meant by spiteful mutants is there was some sort of evolutionary mechanism that was causing some human animals to attempt to sabotage the reproductive success of animals around them or related to them. When they were not having success in reproducing I assumed that it was describing some mechanism where that happened. And I just couldn’t think of like, what, what would be the biological mechanism there? Like how, how would that evolutionarily benefit anything? And that actually isn’t spiteful mutant theory. So I’m actually wondering what, what did you think the spiteful mutant theory is before I go into it, Simone Collins: that people who end up being progressive are in various other ways? Either through their life choices or just through unfortunate circumstances of birth malformed in various ways. And that you tend to see a correlation between people who are more [00:03:00] unkempt or intentionally. Mutilated, like, well, septum, piercings, face tattoos or like, just, just general like markings or o obesity, like various elements that people associate with just not making the best decisions. Hair dying, that kind of thing, like weird colors or whatever. Mm-hmm. Either through choice or through circumstance ending up in these positions. Malcolm Collins: So, that’s close and I’ll give you guys a, a quick summary of what the actual theory is because I’ve gone over a few of his videos just to make sure that I understand like where he’s coming from. Yeah, that’s true. ‘cause Simone Collins: we, we, I, I haven’t actually consumed any of his. His original, this is what it is. I’ve heard him mention them in passing, just like we do with the urban monoculture. So Fair point. Yes. Malcolm Collins: I’ll, I’ll give a high level overview and then I’ll go into the, the details and I’ll also go over, you know, whether this is a useful concept, a useful framing or a true framing and concept. So specifically it sort of starts with just look at a lineup of like progressive [00:04:00] protesters. They look. Malformed, they look weird. They look out of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Right. Speaker 3: We don’t want to interfere with their celebrations. This isn’t the Junior Chamber of Commerce, Brad. They’re probably foreigners with ways different than our own. Speaker 6: I’m just a sweet trans. Speaker 5: Day for the night, or maybe a bite bite. I could show you my favorite obsession. Malcolm Collins: And Simone doesn’t like that. I point that out. But the, the the, when I see that and I see progressive protesters, it’s the same. Everyone looks a little bit deformed and off. Simone Collins: Yeah. But my problem with, with your comparison to the Rocky Horror Picture Show is those are joyful mutants. Speaker 8: In another dimension [00:05:00] with voyeuristic intent, well secluded, I see all Simone Collins: ​ That is how it should be. And they’re not trying to take over the world. They’re, they’re literally, spoiler alert aliens. No, hold on. Malcolm Collins: Spoiler alert. Let’s actually look at the Rocky Horror Picture Show. They are a bunch of deformed humans. You can call them aliens, but they’re deformed humanoids, okay. That are like canonically. They’re, hold on. They are gleeful at the opportunity to sexually harass and assault innocent children. That is what the show is about. They’re [00:06:00] young. The, the, the protagonists in this, in the Rocky Horror Picture Show are, I think in high school hold on, I’m gonna look this up. Simone Collins: Yeah. Tell, let’s, let’s, let’s work that out. I think they’re like young adults. I think they’re like a young couple. It’s just stupid and square. Malcolm Collins: The reason why I think high school is because I think he has a Letterman jacket. I think he is noticed too, Simone Collins: but that could be. And Malcolm Collins: you typically have a Letterman jacket in high school, not in college. Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean, he could be a complete tool who continues to wear his Letterman jacket and college, but I’m curious to see what it says. Malcolm Collins: So it says it depends on the source. Some high school, some college. So yes, Simone, that’s exactly what they are. They are a group of mutants getting their jollies at harassing and, and they are harassing and sexually assaulting them. Do you deny that that is the, the, the core source of joy that these mutants [00:07:00] have? And I’d like to really point out here that the people who venerate this movie are the ones who would demonize individuals like Harvey Weinstein. It’s very clear that this is a very contextual demonization for them and that they normalize this type of behavior. Speaker 12: So come up to the lab and see what’s on the slab. I see you shiver with anticipation, ​ Speaker 15: Such strenuous living. I just don’t [00:08:00] understand. Simone Collins: Well, the way that people on the left talk about it is that they are. Introducing them to elements of their sexuality that they didn’t even know they could explore, and that in the end, they like it And I think that this can be seen as the core of leftist moral philosophy around sexuality. If they say they liked it afterwards, then it’s okay if you, no matter what you force somebody into, if you can get them to normalize to it eventually, then it is okay. And what’s worse and more toxic about this at LU is if you could conceive in yourself that eventually you could get them to like it eventually, then it’s okay because of course, well. From your perspective, you don’t know if they’ll like it eventually or not to begin with. But if you suspect that they will, then of course you can force them into it. Of course, you don’t need consent. , And this. horrifying, really, because it, it leads [00:09:00] to truly, truly evil actions on their behalf. And it’s where you get these horrifying things like, you know, the recent study that showed up of trans individuals who, , the people who ide

    1 h 8 min
  8. The Lie That Underwrites Western Civilization: "Truth" Was Invented in 1953

    2 MAR

    The Lie That Underwrites Western Civilization: "Truth" Was Invented in 1953

    In this eye-opening conversation, Malcolm and Simone Collins expose the myth of "trust the science" in today's world. What people really mean is "trust the peer-review bureaucracy"—a system that's only about 50-70 years old, riddled with failures, and openly admitting its own decline. They dive into the landmark 2023 Nature study showing scientific papers and patents have become dramatically less disruptive since the mid-20th century (decline 90% in disruptiveness for papers). New ideas are incremental, not revolutionary. Metrics like the H-index (invented 2005) and citation farming reward safe, iterative work over bold breakthroughs. Real progress? It's happening outside academia—through tight-knit communities of independent researchers, Substacks, patrons, and informal networks (think biohackers, geneticists like Emil Kirkegaard, or sex/arousal researchers like Aella). They contrast this with historic "hold my beer" science (e.g., self-experimenting spinal cocaine for epidurals), discuss why bureaucracy killed disruptiveness, and explain why renegade cliques (in genetics, governance, crypto, history) are already replacing rotting university systems. Bonus: thoughts on journalism parallels, prediction markets for kids, and why mainstream media/academia memory-holes inconvenient truths. If you've ever wondered why innovation feels stalled despite more scientists and funding than ever—this is why. The old system is dead. The new one is already here.Timestamps below. Like, subscribe, and share if you're tired of bureaucratic "truth." Episode Transcript Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I’m excited to be here with you today. Today we are gonna be discussing something that I have brought up in episodes in the past, but it is one of the largest and most systemic fundamental misunderstandings of how our world currently works. That is common in society, which is. How truth is determined and the belief that the system that we have for determining what is true is an old system. That it is a vetted system or even that it is a system that hasn’t been in constant failure since it came out. It’s a system that itself says it is not working. And here we are going to be talking about the academic system as we understand it right now, when somebody’s like, well, trust the science. They want you, they’re, they’re, they’re trying to get you to believe that what they’re saying is like, trust the scientific [00:01:00] method, trusted the thing that gave us cars and railroads and industrialization and computers. But what they’re actually saying is trust is this very specific, pure review system and academic bureaucracy for sorting information. And I wanna point out to them that, that very same bureaucracy they’re asking us to trust they’re, the, the, the height or one of the, the most respected magazines is nature, right? Nature did a landmark study in 2023 on this very issue and we’ll get to it in a bit, but basically they show that since this system has been in place, scientific research has only declined. It has just been getting worse and worse and worse every year. By Simone Collins: what measure? By. Its ability to be replicated by, Malcolm Collins: By its ability. Disruptiveness is [00:02:00] what they were looking at. So like genuinely new rather than iterative ideas. Simone Collins: Ah, okay. Okay. Like germ theory and antibiotics, that kind thing. Malcolm Collins: Well, you also see you know, research like the, the cost of research. So basically the research you get per dollars has been going down dramatically. We’ll go over. This system basically was put in place in the 1950s and in pharma, new drugs per r and d dollar hald every nine years since the 1950s. So it’s, it’s, it’s accumulated getting worse the further we go from the inception of this system. Simone Collins: That’s horrible. And Malcolm Collins: the other funny that no Halfing every nine years Simone Collins: is, I mean, I’m, I’m sure a lot of that’s bureaucratic morass. I bet AI is really going to disrupt that, but also to a certain extent, for example, in the United States. You almost are prevented from getting a new drug introduced without spending a certain [00:03:00] ridiculous amount of money because of the regulatory morass that you’re bogged down by with the FDA. I Malcolm Collins: don’t think this is regulatory issues. It correlates way more with the implementation of citation, the citation system, I guess I’ll call it, Simone Collins: really, Malcolm Collins: and we’ll go over how that system works, the various variants of that system that have come. Mm-hmm. And people might be surprised how new. So the system that is used most frequently today to judge professors this is the H index and the G index. Okay. These systems were invented in 2005 and 2006 respectively. Simone Collins: Oh my gosh. So around the time you and I were graduating from high school. Like, Malcolm Collins: yeah, that’s when the system that underlies pretty much all of current academia’s hierarchy was invented. Simone Collins: Right. ‘cause you actually mentioned these, these systems to me only this today, and I knew that citations [00:04:00] mattered to researchers. I didn’t know that they were tied to their ability to get tenure. And I looked it up and you were right, and I was shocked that. That was one of the most important factors, and it wasn’t just like organizational fit and the extent to which you contribute to the advancement of your field and to which you are able to get, for example, grant money to your department for the university. I figured that would matter more, even though it’s not necessarily like the best thing in the world at, you know, at least it’s more practical. Malcolm Collins: What I find so ironic is, you know, there’s that like Redditer who’s like for science, Speaker 4: As you know, tomorrow is Peace Day and nobody is as excited for the big celebration as I am. I’m not scientifically possible. Speaker 2: . I’m a super scientist. My father was a super scientist. His father was a super scientist, and his father was, no wait. No. I think he was a milliner. Either way. I’m just not impressed with your tricks. Malcolm Collins: You know, and then they’ll have like a doctor membrane [00:05:00] here. And the irony is, is the ones who say that the ones who worship what they consider quote unquote science mm-hmm. Are actually worshiping something of an inversion of what was practiced by the type of historic scientists that would’ve shouted for science before pulling a lever or something like that. Right. Like the, the Frankenstein scientist. Speaker 3: It’s lie. It’s. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: They actually hate that. Form of science. Mm-hmm. The you know, biohacker lab in your house. So, you know, sharing Simone Collins: and it, it was those people who gave us so many of the medical and otherwise interventions. Like light bulbs, like, epidurals that make such a huge difference in our lives. Malcolm Collins: Dive with epidurals recently. Explain how those are invented. Oh, Simone Collins: yeah. I mean, I asked the anes anesthesiologist giving me my spinal when I was getting my latest [00:06:00] C-section. Like, Hey, how are these invented? Malcolm Collins: He’s attempting to learn Simone pathologically here. I love it. Simone Collins: Well, you, you’d rather, when they’re sticking a giant needle like into your spinal cord, not think about the fact that they’re doing that. So, yeah, I’m asking other questions. But they, they like checked and they looked it up and they’re like, oh yeah, I remember it was these two guys, and they’re like. They were experimenting with, with different things and they they just decided to experiment on each other using like, you know, giant, huge gauge needles. ‘cause at the time they didn’t have smaller needles, but I think what it was, was they tried injecting just cocaine directly to their spinal cords. ‘cause what could go wrong? But they were just, they did it on themselves. It wasn’t like, I have a theory about this. We’re gonna test this on lab bias for like the next 10 years. They’re like, Hey man. What would happen if we just put this directly into our spinal cord? Malcolm Collins: You wanna try to stick this in our spine Simone Collins: with giant needles? Oh, Malcolm Collins: that is, that is fine. That’s the type of thing that [00:07:00] they’re imagining when they say, Simone Collins: yeah, it, it wasn’t, yeah, it, it was hold my beer. Like, that’s the kind of like attitude and that Malcolm Collins: is, it’s funny. Same type of redditer who will say that unironically on Reddit is the same person who freaks out at us for doing like polygenic selection or like, germline gene editing on humans. They’re like, how dare you edit human DNA, that that’s, that could do something new that would be dangerous. Have you sought approval from the authority before flipping that switch? You know, and I, I. I want to get into when they say for science, what they actually are worshiping is a provably failed. And the, and when I say provably failed, I mean the system itself has said, Simone Collins: yeah, Malcolm Collins: this has failed. This is Simone Collins: not working. Malcolm Collins: Our own metrics. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins: A provably failed bureaucracy, not actual science or the scientific message. So let’s get, get in here. [00:08:00] So the system that we call the, the academic bureaucracy right now, that basically, and the reason I say like this determines truth within the urban monoculture. This really does when they’re like, what is true and what is not true? This is the system they’re looking to. Right. It is that their final point of this is the fundamental way reality is structured. Simone Collins: Yeah. Malcolm Collins:

    53 min
Ver todo (734)

Información

Based Camp is a podcast focused on how humans process the world around them and the future of our species. That means we go into everything from human sexuality, to weird sub-cultures, dating markets, philosophy, and politics. Malcolm and Simone are a husband wife team of a neuroscientist and marketer turned entrepreneurs and authors. With graduate degrees from Stanford and Cambridge under their belts as well as five bestselling books, one of which topped out the WSJs nonfiction list, they are widely known (if infamous) intellectuals / provocateurs. If you want to dig into their ideas further or check citations on points they bring up check out their book series. Note: They all sell for a dollar or so and the money made from them goes to charity. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FMWMFTG basedcamppodcast.substack.com

Ficha técnica

  • Creado por
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Años en activo
    2023 - 2026
  • Episodios
    734
  • Clasificación
    Explícito
  • Derechos de autor
    © Simone & Malcolm Collins
  • Sitio web del podcast
    Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Quizá también te guste